Kayvan Vakili

This case involves charges of assault causing bodily harm against Mathew Kinsella and Alexandria Skeffington arising from a violent altercation on October 2, 2022.

The court analyzed video evidence and witness testimony, including the defendants' claims of self-defence and defence of another under section 34 of the Criminal Code.

The judge found the complainants' testimonies unreliable due to intoxication and inconsistencies, while accepting Ms. Skeffington's credible testimony.

Applying the Supreme Court's recent guidance on self-defence, the court concluded that the Crown failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants' actions were unlawful, resulting in dismissal of all charges.

This sentencing decision addresses multiple armed robbery offences and possession of a loaded restricted firearm by Travis Hinds, a young first-time offender.

The court considered the aggravating factors including the use and possession of firearms in multiple planned robberies, the serious injury caused to a victim by a firearm discharge, and the public safety risk posed by such crimes.

Mitigating factors such as Hinds' youth, guilty pleas, lack of prior record, and family support were also weighed.

The court imposed a global sentence of 8 years imprisonment, concurrent sentences for multiple counts, and ancillary orders including a lifetime weapons prohibition, DNA order, forfeiture of seized firearm and ammunition, and a no-contact order with victims.

Leon Wasser applied under s. 490.015 of the Criminal Code to terminate a 20-year Sex Offender Information Registration Act (SOIRA) order, which took effect in 2010 following his conviction for criminal harassment.

The court granted the application, finding that the impact of continuing the SOIRA order on the applicant's privacy and liberty was grossly disproportionate to the public interest in maintaining the registry, given his significant rehabilitation, lack of re-offending, and full record suspension.

The Crown applied for an order remanding the defendant, Gregory Eze, for an assessment under s. 752.1(1) of the Criminal Code, to determine if he might be declared a dangerous or long-term offender.

The court found that the predicate sexual assault offences qualified as "serious personal injury offences" under s. 752(a).

The court then assessed whether there were reasonable grounds to believe Eze might be found to be a dangerous or long-term offender, applying a low threshold of "real possibility." Reviewing Eze's extensive criminal record, including multiple aggravated assaults and other violent offences, the court found a pattern of repetitive and persistent aggressive behaviour involving significant violence and physical control over victims, coupled with a lack of remorse and insight.

The court concluded that the Crown met the burden under s. 752.1(1), allowing the application for a 60-day assessment.

The applicant sought judicial review of the Minister of Justice's order to surrender him for extradition to the United States on charges of child luring and child pornography production.

The applicant challenged the order on two grounds: whether the Minister failed to independently assess the Cotroni factors and whether the Minister sufficiently addressed the applicant's personal circumstances regarding his s. 7 Charter rights and s. 44(1) of the Extradition Act.

The Court of Appeal found no legal error in the Minister's application of the Cotroni factors, noting the Minister considered multiple factors beyond the Attorney General's opinion.

Regarding the s. 7 and s. 44(1) challenge, the court found the Minister's determination that the high threshold for "shocking the conscience" or "unjust or oppressive" was not met, was reasonable, despite acknowledging potential undue hardship from a longer sentence.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.

The accused was charged with multiple firearms offences after police executed a drug search warrant at a residence and found him trying to flee through a basement window.

A loaded handgun was found hidden in a sofa in the basement.

The Crown's case relied entirely on circumstantial evidence, including the accused's utterance to police that 'if you find something it's all mine'.

The trial judge dismissed the defence's motion for a directed verdict but ultimately acquitted the accused, finding that the circumstantial evidence did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had knowledge and control of the hidden handgun.